Bom Translational Timeline:

[cksalmon]

Speaking of fudging the numbers . . . 547 - 365 = 182 . . . which makes it roughly one-and-a-half years, not the amount bolded [by me] above.

USU "Let's be fair while we're being fair" 78

SG and USU--

I'd love to relate some pithy story about how I came up with that number, but, um...I have no idea.

I'd also love to say that I accidentally figured for 1.5 years (which it appears I might have) rather than 2.5, but I can also imagine so many other, ridiculously-inept ways I might have arrived at 547 that I wouldn't count on my mistake being quite that simple.

Since folks are looking in here, though, any complaints about the endnote on page 1?

Best to you both...

CKS

[USU78]

Since folks are looking in here, though, any complaints about the endnote on page 1?

Not really. So long as sources are adequately identified and the conclusions drawn therefrom are not tenuous or absurd, fair is indeed fair.

USU "Don't get me started on Quinn's ftns" 78

PS. I've had many a Gehirnsfurzen myself and am in no position to gripe about somebody else's. R

[SeattleGrunge]

Since folks are looking in here, though, any complaints about the endnote on page 1?

From the excellent layout given on http://eldenwatson.net/BoM.htm's web page we see that the translation was completed through Mosiah.

I guess my only problem with that last post on page 1 would be saying...

The majority of the manuscripts are in Oliver Cowdery's handwriting

If anything before Alma 1 is in his handwriting, then there definitely would be a problem, otherwise not really.

I'd love to relate some pithy story about how I came up with that number, but, um...I have no idea.

...I can also imagine so many other, ridiculously-inept ways I might have arrived at 547 that I wouldn't count on my mistake being quite that simple.

I think your subconscious mind was trying to write infinity...if you take 547 and add a minus and plus sign as follows...5-4+7 = 8 and when 8 falls on its side, you get infinity. I think that is why you typed 547

[phaedrus ut]

I'm still not sure where he is getting the 2 1/2 year timeline.

Using Thursday June 25, 1829 as the date when Joseph completed translation. (History of the Church and History of Joseph Smith By His Mother). It was 1 year 9 months from the date that Joseph said he first took physical posession of the plates, September 26, 1827(See Early Mormon Documents EMD 1:331-332). And 1 year 7 months from the first time Joseph started translating characters from the plates in December 1827(see The Papers of Joseph Smith 1:284 & History of the Church 1:19).

Phaedrus

[cksalmon]

I'm still not sure where he is getting the 2 1/2 year timeline.

Using Thursday June 25, 1829 as the date when Joseph completed translation. (History of the Church and History of Joseph Smith By His Mother). It was 1 year 9 months from the date that Joseph said he first took physical posession of the plates, September 26, 1827(See Early Mormon Documents EMD 1:331-332). And 1 year 7 months from the first time Joseph started translating characters from the plates in December 1827(see The Papers of Joseph Smith 1:284 & History of the Church 1:19).

Phaedrus

Hey Phaedrus--

I take your point.

William's narrative is fairly loose and informal. He seems much more concerned with the dates of his church callings than with other dates. I suppose he must have been working with some documents as he wrote, but seems to also write from memory a great deal. It's certainly more memoir than history text.

Note that he writes: "He was engaged in this business as he had opportunity for about two years and a half." But, you're certainly correct, even calculating from date of first possession to date of publication, one doesn't get to 2.5 years.

Best.

CKS

PS. I'm sure I'm looking right over it, but I'm not seeing the September 26 date in EMD 1:131-2.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Also, "as he had opportunity" is a significant point made in that statement.

[MormonMason]

From the excellent layout given on http://eldenwatson.net/BoM.htm's web page we see that the translation was completed through Mosiah.

That is assuming that the webpage information is complete and accurate. I have seen a number of assumptions and estimations on the webpage. Other evidence suggests that Oliver Cowdery was involved in Mosiah and that chapter 2 or 3 was where the previous had left off. Mosiah and almost all the first ten chapters of Alma are now missing from the Original Manuscript so there is no way to be certain.

I guess my only problem with that last post on page 1 would be saying...

QUOTE(MormonMason @ Jan 5 2008, 07:05 PM) *

The majority of the manuscripts are in Oliver Cowdery's handwriting

If anything before Alma 1 is in his handwriting, then there definitely would be a problem, otherwise not really.

...

There is no problem at all with what I have said. It is true. In point of fact, the majority of the manuscripts are in Oliver Cowdery's handwriting!

[SeattleGrunge]

That is assuming that the webpage information is complete and accurate. I have seen a number of assumptions and estimations on the webpage. Other evidence suggests that Oliver Cowdery was involved in Mosiah and that chapter 2 or 3 was where the previous had left off. Mosiah and almost all the first ten chapters of Alma are now missing from the Original Manuscript so there is no way to be certain.

If anything before Alma 1 is in his handwriting, then there definitely would be a problem, otherwise not really.

...

There is no problem at all with what I have said. It is true. In point of fact, the majority of the manuscripts are in Oliver Cowdery's handwriting!

True, I was explaining that the only way I could have a problem with your post was if you implied that anything prior to Alma was written by OC when you say majority. Nevertheless, I didn't take that implication. Just clarifying where the only problem could arise. I should have wrote "could be" not "would be."

[MormonMason]

True, I was explaining that the only way I could have a problem with your post was if you implied that anything prior to Alma was written by OC when you say majority. Nevertheless, I didn't take that implication. Just clarifying where the only problem could arise. I should have wrote "could be" not "would be."

And, why would that be a problem again? What difference does it make whether he worked on substantial portions of Mosiah, as other evidence shows, or whether he started on Alma? And, what order of books are you picturing? Much of the translation of the small plates of Nephi (1 Nephi-Enos) in the extant portions of the Original Manuscript also have Oliver Cowdery's hand on it.

[SeattleGrunge]

And, why would that be a problem again? What difference does it make whether he worked on substantial portions of Mosiah, as other evidence shows, or whether he started on Alma? And, what order of books are you picturing? Much of the translation of the small plates of Nephi (1 Nephi-Enos) in the extant portions of the Original Manuscript also have Oliver Cowdery's hand on it.

Again, I don't have a problem. I was just trying to assume what post #26 was suggesting there could be a "complaint" about. And, after comparing the link mentioned in my response to OC's start of the translation process indicates to me that he shouldn't have written anything previous to Alma 1. As I was thereafter informed, the said web page has some errors in its time line. That therefore, could create a possibility for OC's hand writing be on the translation of something prior to Alma 1. Again, I do not consider myself an expert here and am very open to people pointing out errors in others (and mine for that matter) information upon which I based those statements.

With that said, how could his handwriting be on translations prior to Alma 1? Was the time line on that webpage incorrect? Did OC go back to rewrite something written by a previous scribe? Do we have manuscripts of text prior to Alma 1 with his hand writing on it ?

[MormonMason]

...

With that said, how could his handwriting be on translations prior to Alma 1? Was the time line on that webpage incorrect? Did OC go back to rewrite something written by a previous scribe? Do we have manuscripts of text prior to Alma 1 with his hand writing on it ?

The web page makes assumptions and estimates based upon interpretations of various statements. They are assumptions, nonetheless. The accuracy of the page could only be completely disputed were we to actually find the manuscript portions for Mosiah in the Original Manuscript. The portion from Enos to Alma 10:30 are no longer extant so there is no way to prove it either way. However, 1 Nephi through Enos (except for some pages and a few chapter headings in the hands of two other unknown scribes, as well as a few words in another portion in the handwriting of Joseph Smith himself) is written in the handwriting of Oliver Cowdery. In fact, most of the extant Original Manuscript is in the hand of Oliver Cowdery.

This is not problematic (except to the claims of the web page, perhaps), however, whether we believe the Mosiah-first theory, or variant thereof, or a variant of the small plates-first theory. The evidence I have seen suggests a Mosiah-first priority, including the filing of the copyright and certain events that transpired during the translation, as well as the changed number of chapters that occurs in the Printer's Manuscript of the Book of Mormon text of Mosiah.

[phaedrus ut]

I'm sure I'm looking right over it, but I'm not seeing the September 26 date in EMD 1:131-2.

Looking through my notes I see that it's a estimated date. We know he got the plates and hid them away in a birch log on September 22, 1827

"On the twenty second day of September, One thousand Eight hundred and twenty seven, having went as usual at the end of another year to the place where they were deposited, the same heavenly messenger delivered them up to me with this charge that I should be responsible for them."(See History of the Church 1:17)

I believe his mother also confirms this date. And IIRC she confirms that he had already had them by the start of October. So the theoretical retrieval of the plates happened between 9/22 and 10/1. I believe that date was estimated using travel times.

Phaedrus

[Obiwan]

After reading Rough Stone Rolling I was struck by the influence that Oliver Cowdrey had on Joseph Smith. I do not own a copy, so I can't quote it directly, but after reading it I came to see Oliver as a sort of muse for Joseph Smith.

I would say "influence"... I would say they were close and likely kindred spirits. And wouldn't they be, given that Oliver also experienced most of the Key Angelic visitations Joseph did.

Whether this has any import on the divine origin of the product is another matter, but Bushman's book seems to clearly say that Oliver was critical to the speedy completion of the work.

Not surprising given that Oliver was reletively educated, being a school teacher, then a successful lawyer.

His skills for transcribing would have likely been far superior to most others.

[Gervin]

Not surprising given that Oliver was reletively educated, being a school teacher, then a successful lawyer.

His skills for transcribing would have likely been far superior to most others.

One would think, though I wonder why he made so many nonsensical spelling errors in the original manuscript?

[MormonMason]

One would think, though I wonder why he made so many nonsensical spelling errors in the original manuscript?

Because Oliver Cowdery was trained under the old school where there was not yet standardization of spelling. Noah Webster was one of the biggest pushers of the standardization of spelling in the 1820s but that was too late for people like Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, who would have had to have retrained themselves. They did end up working on that after the Book of Mormon was published but not before.

[Gervin]

Because Oliver Cowdery was trained under the old school where there was not yet standardization of spelling.

No, I was referring to mistakes that have nothing to do with standardized spelling. Nonsensical mistakes, as if someone was copying from a written text, not recording the words they were hearing: Mormon Studies on Scribal Errors

[MormonMason]

No, I was referring to mistakes that have nothing to do with standardized spelling. Nonsensical mistakes, as if someone was copying from a written text, not recording the words they were hearing: Mormon Studies on Scribal Errors

While I found the article of interest, it really did not impress me as much as the author obviously impressed himself. Here is why, and I think the following explanation is of greater or equal value. (By the way, I meant to type "equal or greater value" but left it here as it is simply because it is another example of what I am about to say).

I find that when I write by hand, or even when I type quickly, I tend to make more blunderous and nonsensical mistakes in spelling and orthography than would I ordinarily. I do it frequently. In fact, I do it ss frequently that I do not pay it much attention. When I type in such a fashion, I mistype and very often immediately catch it and correct it in place. I do not always catch the blunders when I am most in a hurry for some reason. But, that is my practice in typing. It also is the reason why my typing is often limited to about 43 words a minute. It would be much faster if I did not go back over to correct letters or backspace over entire words to retype the entire word again before proceeding to the next word. That is my weakness and there it is.

It is pertinent to this discussion, however. The reason I bring it up is because I noticed it immediately after seeing your remarks and while I was searching for something else on another topic at that moment immediately following. As I caught myself doing it, I was reminded of your remarks and saved it as an example of what I am saying.

I was looking for the method of how to kill a process in Unix. I had forgotten how to do it since I have grown accustomed to using a GUI application to do it whenever necessary. Now that the application is part of the CDE environment, which is deprecated and soon to be discontinued in favor of the Java Desktop Environment, I am about to lose this application and will have to do it the old fashioned way.

"What is this guy's point?!" you may be asking right about now. I am getting to it. Just be patient. In the Google search I was performing, I hurriedly typed in my search phrases because I needed the information in a hurry. I typed "how to hill an application Sun SOlaris" when I should have typed "how to kill an application Sun Solaris" there and immediately corrected the blunderous mispelling before proceeding to the next word, as I am wont to do. To put it into the form given by the author of the paper under scrutiny:

how to hill an application Sun SOlaris = how to kill an application Sun Solaris

h

ill =

k

ill

h = k

Or, as Mr. Skousen would put it:

{h|k}ill

But, after studying the revelance of this for a moment, I recalled instances of when I had done this while writing by hand as well! In fact, I do this more frequently while writing by hand than I do when typing! The faster I write the more blunderous spelling errors creep in, which I feel in duty bound to correct before getting too far ahead of myself. It gets worse the faster I write, particularly when I am trying to transcribe what I am hearing from audio tapes and CDs!

So, there you have it. Just as possible, but far more likely than the author of the paper's view in question is that Oliver Cowdery just as likely also felt in duty bound to correct his mistakes on the fly, particularly when he was in a hurry during fast dictation of the words of a person reading from the stone. He would make such blunderous mistakes like I would in such circumstances and go back and correct them hurriedly.

But, this is not all! Not only do I make such blunderous mistakes, I do it frequently and go back to correct them while transcribing my own dictation. I also in the process write so quickly in longhand that many of my letters look like other letters. Anyone who has seen samples of my penmanship knows full well how difficult a proposition it is to enter into the task of reading it! My Hs look like Ns and sometimes my Rs look like Ns, my Qs look like As, my As also sometimes look like Os and vice-versa, and so forth. I often go back and clean those up while writing mid sentence and come back to where I left off.

I so see in Oliver Cowdery's method to his madness what I see in my own. Here is the kicker, though. I do not always correct each and every single thing I write. In extreme cases, I cannot read my own notes written several years previous if I do not make the corrections, but I am getting ahead of myself. I myself have made such blunderous and nonsensical spelling as we can see in Oliver Cowdery, and I know full well how to spell the word I miswrite. Yet, I do it anyway, particularly when I am in a hurry to transcribe what I hear as fast as I can. I have done the same when taking notes at Masonic meetings. I have also done the same thing when writing down thoughts in a hurry.

Fascinatingly enough, we find the same in the case of the Original Manuscript of the Book of Mormon. And, we find it frequently, as can be shown by the paper in question. I believe that Oliver Cowdery was a bit of a perfectionist and that he did do as I now do when transcribing words being spoken, and that he went over and corrected his nonsensical spellings as soon as his eye caught them and would then go back and try to cover what he missed when doing so, making it more hectic and causing him to write more quickly, causing further such mistakes as he went along.

It is exactly the sort of thing I would expect from someone taking down text in long-hand that he was hearing, and all the while correcting many of the egregious errors as he caught them, but not eliminating them all. Some would slip through the cracks, just as they do with my own long-hand transcribing of audible remarks. And, what is more, I have seen examples of dittography as is found in the Original Book of Mormon Manuscript in my own writing as well, and I know full well that what I transcribed at the time came from audio, not from a previously written manuscript.

So, there you have it. Now, here is why I value my comments more than those of the author of the paper in question. I have experienced such with my own eyes and hands as what I see in the first manuscript of the Book of Mormon. No previous manuscript is required for me to see this, just my own experiences.

In the case of the author of the paper in question, however, he has to create elaborate conspiracies and adhere to complicit conspiracy to commit such a fraud as he postulates. All of the eyewitness accounts are not only against this, the fact of the existence of the witnesses themselves, and of the fact that they became enemies to Joseph Smith and were ousted from the Church also weighs heavily against any such conspiracy as that postulated not being exposed by someone during the hard times. Even when Oliver Cowdery told people that he was sorry for his involvement with Mormonism, he NEVER stated anywhere that he was the author of the Book of Mormon, or that he copied and plagiarized a manuscript from Solomon Spalding or from anyone else, even in the heat of bitterness! It also does not explain his return to the Church or the lifetime actions of Martin Harris, David Whiter or Oliver Cowdery collectively, who sat and transcribed, or actually witnessed the dictation with Joseph Smith's face buried in a hat, excluding all light in an already darker room. In this case, I find myself siding more with Vogel, which does not happen very often.

That dog won't hunt, sir! This is so particularly in light of what I have experienced for myself when transcribing audio in long-hand. I imagine this would be even more so in the case of the day when there were no tape recorders or CD players, etc., that could be stopped and started as needed.

[mormon fool]

Who are those scholars, hagoth? I haven't, personally, seen scholars guestimate an actual 60-day time period for BoM translational activity within a larger 547-day possible time period. If they have done so, I have not noted them to have suggested that there was a period of 547 days during which Joseph might have translated BoM, but that, owing to other responsibilities, he actually only used 60 of those days. Who makes this claim?

Best.

CKS

Try John Welch's material in Opening the Heaven's which includes scores of accounts and documents on the translation process.

[DonBradley]

CK,

Hey, long time no talk. There is contemporaneous or near-contemporaneous evidence for a dictation period totaling about five months (about two in 1828 for the 116 pages, and about three in 1829), while William Smith account is a very late recollection.

Also, Smith could be referring to the period from the beginning of Joseph's work with the plates (e.g., transcribing the characters in early 1828) to the publication of the book in March 1830; or, as someone else suggested, he could be referring to the (slightly) longer period from his retrieval of the plates to the publication of the book, which totals almost exactly two and a half years.

Don